Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-8-introduction-rabia-khaji-...
Dear Rabia and all,
Thank you for your message. I was struck by your words ‘Open access is not only about removing paywalls, but about removing barriers between evidence and impact, between research and real-life change’.
This aligns closely with Question 1. What is the impact of open access (OA) on health care?
Open access has the potential for direct and indirect impact on the availability of reliable healthcare information and therefore, by extension, quality of health care.
Our discussions over the years on HIFA have demonstrated that access to relevant, reliable healthcare information is essential for quality care. Such information is essential not only in hospital environments, but also in the home, community and primary care. And it is as essential for a family living in a remote rural area of a low-income country as it is for a tertiary care specialist.
Our question then becomes: To what extent does open access help to create a world where every person has access to the reliable information they need to protect their own health and the health of others?
In our opening message for this question we noted DIRECT and INDIRECT impacts of open access on health care and I look forward to exploring both of these over the coming week.
We wrote:
“There is a potential DIRECT impact of open access on health care (whether through a better-informed health worker or patient). Who needs access to original research and why? …”
“There are also potential INDIRECT impacts on health care. These indirect impacts could relate to one or more of the six components of the global evidence ecosystem: 1 researchers, 2 journal publishers, 3 systematic reviewers and guideline developers, 4 publishers of content for end-users, 5 library and information professionals, and 6 healthcare professionals….”
We typically think of direct impacts, and it would be great to hear examples where open access to original research has made a difference to health care (or, conversely, where a paywall has frustrated healthcare decision-making).
However, it can be argued that the direct impact of open access to a specific research article is limited by the fact that single research articles should usually not be relied on to inform clinical (or policy) decisions. As described in the global evidence ecosystem, decisions should normally be based on the cumulative available evidence rather than single studies.
By contrast, I think the indirect impacts of open access are hugely important in’ removing barriers between evidence and impact, between research and real-life change’. Open access is already having a profound positive impact on the functional integrity of the global evidence ecosystem. This will increase further as AI plays an increasing role in the system (AI depends largely on freely available content). Moreover, the ethos of the open access movement is a positive driver for cooperation and collaboration in an increasingly divided world.
What do you think?
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org